UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
wow, just wow.
you and NLXSK1 should just spare yourselves the indignity and embarrassment.
A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share?
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
you and NLXSK1 should just spare yourselves the indignity and embarrassment.
Why are you so concerned with the rich?
How would you tax them?
Would you agree that taxing the spending of the rich would be a more fair way to tax them since they escape the income tax because their wealth permits them to have no income?
You cannot let the dream of a perfect plan be the enemy of a good plan. The FairTax is not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than the current scheme.
Its better at taxing the rich, for one. It works better for the poor. It works better for the middle class.
The current tax scheme is a hell of a big burden on the poor and middle classes, particularly the middle.
They give up 30 ish per cent of their income, then they are taxed when their investments are cashed in at retirement, then when they die and leave their net worth to their kids, it is taxed again.
Under the FairTax, folks can decide how much (to an extent) how much tax they will pay.
Buying a car, get a used one instead of new - no tax.
Need some sort of good, buy it used - no tax.
When you die, leave it all to your kids, and they wont have to stress over what piece of mom and dads property to sell to pay the tax bill for inheriting it all.
A poor family gets over $4000 a year in monthly disbursements to nullify the taxes they pay when they buy new goods and services.
ALL OTHER TAXES are GONE... And you can avoid taxation buy purchasing used goods whenever possible. Think of what this means. You can escape a large portion of taxes, you the average guy, by simply being OK with buying a washing machine off of craigslist instead of Sears.
The loopholes in the FairTax benefit the little man.
Buck cant wrap his tiny brain around it..
Infinity, zero, nonsense.
They might not know what they are talking about, but I do.
The comments are in reference to why is vast amounts of wealth being stored in offshore banks. The answer, to escape taxation here in the USA.
The result, millions or billions dollars worth of potentially working capital is being kept out of the American economy.
Good, bad, or indifferent, rich folks will do all they can to avoid taxation, just like anyone else (I notice how Buck said he would hire veterans to reduce his tax burden in another thread, same concept, different magnitudes.)
Why don't they bring this money home? Because when they do, nearly 40% is going to be taken as income tax, then when they invest it, IF it makes any money, a further 15% of that is going to be taken. They have an incentive to keep it overseas.
What to do?
FairTax.
If they could bring this money home, they would, and they would if they could escape losing half of it shortly after it gets here.
You might whine, waaa waaa they will just buy a big ass boat, or a fancy car, or invest it and make more money. Ok, great, I hope they do.
Do you not realize that when a wealthy man buys a yacht that a middle class salesman gets a nice commission check? And a slightly more well off yacht dealer makes more money, maybe hires another salesman because sales are up.
Oh wait, there is more! Somewhere, that yacht has to be produced, many are right here in the United States. So factory workers are given jobs by the evil rich man who just is greedy and buys something he doesn't need.
(Edit - then someone has to hire a truck driver to haul the boat to the lake or marina where the evil rich man plans to dock it. There a marina owned by someone makes money, and hires someone to preform services of the yacht. It is a chain that [wait for it] trickles down all over the place. Who'd of thunk it... A rich man buying something helps keep untold numbers of people working.)
Rich people buying shit they dont need is what gives a great many Americans a source of income.
Even if its just a rich man hiring someone to dust his Picasso.
Hatred for the rich is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
A comparison under the FairTax...
Billionaire vs Middle-class
Suppose the billionaire spends $10,000,000 dollars, he pays a tax of $2,300,000 and gets a prebate of $4,697 (assuming he is married and has no children). His effective tax rate as a percent of spending is 22.95 percent.
Now, let's look at a middle-income married couple with no children under the FairTax -- if they spend $50,000, they pay $6,803 net of their prebate for an effective tax rate of 13.6 percent. The effective tax rate increases as spending increases, but never exceeds 23 percent!
As you say, Buck, if you earn $50,000 you spend $50,000.... Chart Time.
In contrast, if this same couple earns $50,000 in wages today under the current tax system, they pay $4,093 in income taxes and $3,825 in payroll taxes for a total of $7,918 in taxes (15.8 percent) -- a tax burden 14.1 percent higher than under the FairTax. In addition, their employer pays another $3,825 in payroll taxes. Most economists agree that the employer payroll tax is actually borne by employees in the form of lower wages. Looked at this way, this couple is paying $11,743 (23.5 percent) in taxes today, which doesnt even include the hidden taxes they pay every time they make a purchase.
Finally, lets look at a low-income couple that spends at the poverty level under the FairTax -- they pay no net FairTax at all. Today, under the income tax system, they not only pay 15 percent in payroll taxes, but they also pay hidden taxes -- arising from corporate taxes, private sector compliance costs, and payroll taxes passed on to consumers and embedded in the price of everything they buy.
Buck, forrest for trees. You cant get past the fucking leaves.
Billionaire vs Middle-class
Suppose the billionaire spends $10,000,000 dollars, he pays a tax of $2,300,000 and gets a prebate of $4,697 (assuming he is married and has no children). His effective tax rate as a percent of spending is 22.95 percent.
Now, let's look at a middle-income married couple with no children under the FairTax -- if they spend $50,000, they pay $6,803 net of their prebate for an effective tax rate of 13.6 percent. The effective tax rate increases as spending increases, but never exceeds 23 percent!
As you say, Buck, if you earn $50,000 you spend $50,000.... Chart Time.
| FairTax | Current Tax | |
| Spending/Income | $50,000 | $50,000 |
| Net Tax | $6,803 | $7,918 |
| Effective Tax Rate | 13.6% | 15.8% |
In contrast, if this same couple earns $50,000 in wages today under the current tax system, they pay $4,093 in income taxes and $3,825 in payroll taxes for a total of $7,918 in taxes (15.8 percent) -- a tax burden 14.1 percent higher than under the FairTax. In addition, their employer pays another $3,825 in payroll taxes. Most economists agree that the employer payroll tax is actually borne by employees in the form of lower wages. Looked at this way, this couple is paying $11,743 (23.5 percent) in taxes today, which doesnt even include the hidden taxes they pay every time they make a purchase.
Finally, lets look at a low-income couple that spends at the poverty level under the FairTax -- they pay no net FairTax at all. Today, under the income tax system, they not only pay 15 percent in payroll taxes, but they also pay hidden taxes -- arising from corporate taxes, private sector compliance costs, and payroll taxes passed on to consumers and embedded in the price of everything they buy.
Buck, forrest for trees. You cant get past the fucking leaves.
see4
Well-Known Member
No, you clearly don't. Our GDP is directly correlated to our middle-class purchasing power. Please consider a common sense argument when considering this debate.
Ten multi-millionaires buying multimillion dollar homes and hundred thousand dollar cars and hundred thousand boats does not do more for the economy than 100 middle-class individuals buying televisions, pots, pans, Chevys, Fords and hitting up the local movie theatre. More money is put BACK into the economy by the middle-class than the multi-millionaires, how do you think the rich stay rich? They usually don't spend a heck of a lot of money. They use it on things that will last. The middle-class consumes perishable items that have short life spans requiring them to purchase again.
For example, my friend just bought a pair of cool headphones, Skullcandy I think was the name, he paid $40 for them. He will need to replace those in 12 months. I just bought a $349 pair of Bose noise canceling earbud headphones, I will replace those in several years when I get bored with them, and as they will still be working I will likely pass them on to someone. My friend will likely go through several pairs of these during the same period of time, he will have to spend gas and utilize a cashier to make a purchase and pull the item off the shelf of which someone stocked, etc etc... he is "more" middle-class than I, and he is doing more for the economy than I.
Sans the debate on cost of production.
PetFlora
Well-Known Member
Taxes and Fair Share. Hmmmm
Is it fair that our government gives away billions to foreign countries, and subsidies like; agriculture, oil & gas, + funds a totally out of control military industrial complex..., yet cuts unemployment and food stamps which are necessary because our government has bailed out wall street, who has withheld the money from distribution?
And what are these taxes anyway? They pay down the INTEREST created by the FED for lending US money, which they make out of thin air, not backed by anything, but leveraged on each and every birth certificate bond
Just say NO!
Is it fair that our government gives away billions to foreign countries, and subsidies like; agriculture, oil & gas, + funds a totally out of control military industrial complex..., yet cuts unemployment and food stamps which are necessary because our government has bailed out wall street, who has withheld the money from distribution?
And what are these taxes anyway? They pay down the INTEREST created by the FED for lending US money, which they make out of thin air, not backed by anything, but leveraged on each and every birth certificate bond
Just say NO!
I think your friend is more an example of how the poor in America view themselves as middle class, and the upper parts of the middle class tend to view themselves as somehow not middle class.
Unless you stroked a check for a milti million dollar purchase, you are middle class. A very good definition of middle class was given to me by a professor in college. One who relies on debt.
The rich don't need to borrow money, the rich lend money.
So no, cheesy, your back asswards here.
And yeah, you are right, middle income people buying televisions and the like is good for the economy. Good for indonisias. I think that is where the bulk of tv's are produced.
New homes, high end yachts, and most luxury items are built here in the united states.
Pulling something off of a shelf (requiring a stock associate) is not supporting the middle class because minimum wage (or near min wage) earners are not typically middle class.
Buying a high ticket yacht is, because when you buy a 4 million dollar boat, that salesman gets a hefty commission check. (edit - and a truck driver hauling 2 or 3 yachts on his rig is usually paid better than one hauling a container with thousands of items to a Wal mart.)
Folks buying yachts isn't the sole source of middle class prosperity, it was an example.
Those folks (Americans) in the supply chain for items rich folks spend lots of money on Are very often paid better than the supply chain folks for the very cheap consumer good sold at places like Wal mart, and boats that come from bass pro shops.
Most of the goods the poor and lower middle class buy comes from overseas.
The poor don't create jobs, only the rich do.
Tax their investments. Eliminate deductions for charitable giving and eliminate stepped up basis valuation for assets after death.
It doesn't sound like this tax would raise very much money...
Doesn't this suggest rich people are going to do everything possible to avoid paying your sales tax?
Most of the money sitting offshore originated from international operations. When we tried having a corporate tax holiday, little empirical evidence of economic benefits materialized.
To your first set of points; if you tax their investments too heavily they stop. If they stop, then the economy crumbles. Investments drive the economy. Also, many middle class folks depend on their ira's 401k and mutual funds. This also hurts middle class folks. As to eliminating deductions for charitable giving, I'm fine with that. But the red cross sure would hate it. You want to increase the death tax... I think it should be abolished. But fair enough. But this would also have a very burdensome impact on the middle class, the heirs of whom usually cannot afford the tax, and if it were higher might lose the family farm.
To the second point; the fair tax has been deemed to be revenue neutral by multiple, diverse, independent entities. In other words, smart people who really study it hard have determined it would raise just as much revenue.
Consider, Florida, Texas, and Tennessee (and several other states) maintain comparable revenues to states with income taxes.
Rich people avoid the current tax like crazy, almost to the point of not paying much of it.
I wrote a high level paper on this subject, and I lost my sources, so I have not mentioned this, but going from memory, consider the following.
They did a survey of something like 500 companies, I think it was 2/3 said they would be very likely to relocate their headquarters and manufacturing to the united states.
The rich folks who keep money off shore may still decide to keep it over there. I'm just saying that any and all penalties would be removed from them deciding to bring it home. And since they could invest it tax free here, it only makes sense that they would.
There are lots of knee jerk reactions to this.
People hear about it and think, god, everything I buy is going to cost so much more, don't really think about anything else, and are opposed to it. Or they see how other states have sales taxes that are regressive to the poor, and don't like this.
They simply can't see the forest for the trees.
You get 100% of your pay check, no deductions.
The folks who supply everything you buy suddenly pay no taxes, so they can get the goods to market much cheaper. Competition drives the cost down.
The poor and low incomes are protected by an advanced tax rebate every month. A family of 4 gets several hundred dollars per month. This covers the tax they will pay on the goods and servies they buy.
Lots of questions answered here.
A libertarian think tank spent millions and millions of dollars researching this.
The goal; find out what the problems were with our current tax structure, and how it could be fixed.
There are so many seemingly little things about our current tax structure that have a negative impact on our society. These are all eliminated. All of them. They replace it with one simple, transparent, tax structure that is damn near immune to special interests and congressional manipulation.
No one can lobby congress for help through the tax code, congress cannot punish something by taxing it.
It removes so much power from the federal government.
If you took several hours and studied it, then took 10 dollars and bought the very small "fairtax book" by Boortz and Linder, you would have a very thorough understanding of it, and you would more than likely be on my side.
Tax policy is complex, and this is like nothing ever implemented before in our history. It shares some similarities with state sales taxes, but it has mechanisms that make it more fair.
If you don't like it because "rich people aren't taxed enough because they don't spend every dollar they make." well, ya know what they say about fixing stupid.
If you want something that benefits the poor and middle class, well this is a great start.
It ain't perfect.
But if you had to choose between what we have now, and this (assuming it is what I say it is) what would you choose?
Well, it is what I say it is.
The goal; find out what the problems were with our current tax structure, and how it could be fixed.
There are so many seemingly little things about our current tax structure that have a negative impact on our society. These are all eliminated. All of them. They replace it with one simple, transparent, tax structure that is damn near immune to special interests and congressional manipulation.
No one can lobby congress for help through the tax code, congress cannot punish something by taxing it.
It removes so much power from the federal government.
If you took several hours and studied it, then took 10 dollars and bought the very small "fairtax book" by Boortz and Linder, you would have a very thorough understanding of it, and you would more than likely be on my side.
Tax policy is complex, and this is like nothing ever implemented before in our history. It shares some similarities with state sales taxes, but it has mechanisms that make it more fair.
If you don't like it because "rich people aren't taxed enough because they don't spend every dollar they make." well, ya know what they say about fixing stupid.
If you want something that benefits the poor and middle class, well this is a great start.
It ain't perfect.
But if you had to choose between what we have now, and this (assuming it is what I say it is) what would you choose?
Well, it is what I say it is.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Draw a set of conclusions that will decrease the taxes on the Rich people who funded the study and present it as a academic work so the middle class will vote against their own interest and increase the tax burden upon themselves
A couple of honest questions Cheezy.
How many dollars in taxes do you think are paid by the millions of people that work under the table?
Do you believe it is right to work under the table to avoid paying taxes?
Which tax system would better fix this, our current system or the Fair Tax?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Possibly, it could also prove to cost them more depending on choices. One thing you should consider is that Mitt's dancing horsie in the olympics would no longer be a tax deduction to fly equines across the pond.
Even if they are frugal and sock away money, it's still in the system (unless they put in the mattress) and can be used as investment capital by the banks they use.
Saving is a good thing, we should be encouraging that type of behavior.
Says the man that is almost completely ignorant of the intricacies of the fairtax.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
As with any tax system ever created it can be progressive. You can make it any way you want it. If you REALLY want to stick it to the rich you can go to work on our corporate tax policies.
Having said that, you can tailor a consumption tax to weigh heavily toward the rich paying more. Just because you are too unimaginative to grasp this concept doesn't mean it's not possible.
You really aren't very bright are you? It seems you base all of your opinions on feelings, feelings that are based on your agenda.
The Fair Tax in it's present form would not consider income, that's why it's considered fair. To get the people like you on board, they would HAVE to find a way to eat the rich.
A credible economist is subjective and a Strawman.
You're really not to good at this, are you.